Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the dependency chain on forge_list_organizations and the underlying REST route, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior even though page_size/page_cursor params exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded followed by the prerequisite and the API route. Nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and endpoint, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor gaps around pagination mechanics and result shape keep it from being exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every filter and pagination parameter is already documented, including its filter[...] mapping. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('List servers in an organization'), which an agent can distinguish from forge_get_server (single server) and forge_list_sites. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope qualifier is enough to identify the tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ordering: call forge_list_organizations first to obtain the organization id. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer forge_get_server or how to page through results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.